Are the Romans too Powerful?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Ludens
True, yet the defensive A.I. of M:TW was far more mobile and proactive in trying to gain height advantage. The R:TW A.I. simply picks its spot and sticks to it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Ludens
I don't think the lack of ambushes is matter of bonuses. A morale penalty is hardly the only or even the most important consequence of an ambush.

Morale penalties can make a true difference if the game is on the line (when the decisive melee is joined) and at the closing stages of a battle were armies are scattered all over the map, are fatigued and undermaned.

Having joined the MP game recently, i start understanding that there is a very fine morale "link" in the MTW engine that keeps together an army. Units need to support each other in terms of space and time, and against other units if they are not to rout.

In the SP game this is not always visible due to all the upgrades and bonuses - for example 30 turns in the campaign in the original MeddMod IV, my swordsmen would fight till the last man as they carry many valour,armour,weapon and morale upgrades.

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.

Similarly, if the AI had an all infantry army versus a cavalry heavy army, he would set it in the woods, since they was something to be gained (cavalry was getting hefty penalties in woods in STW/MTW but not in RTW).

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.

For another example the MTW AI is a very keen flank charger with cavalry - the RTW is much less keen on this but then again there is no blobbing penalty and charges seem to work just as well through friendly and enemy units.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Ludens]

If you play without upgrades (in the campaign or online) this is not the case and morale is instrumental. So ambushing, ie attack from a hidden place at a critical point can have a massive hit in the "relationships" that the enemy is having for keeping his units together morale wise, and turn the tables in a short time to a massive rout that usually is irrecoverable.

Very true.

Anyway, it is only a suspicion i have relative to the RTW AI behaviour and so unsubstantiated.

Several particapants of the thread I refered to shared your suspicion. However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Another example isthat in MTW 1.0 spears were more of cavalry killers until they were nerfed (in order to lose from swords by popular demand).

However the AI is still using the spears past that stage as cavalry killers, when they are now pinners (low attack, high defence). Cavalry killers are now halberds,other cavalry and even swords when properly valoured-upgraded.

All in all the AI kept his habit and that put him at a disadvantage. Something similar might be happening in RTW or simply of course whole AI sections were taken-out to make the game more simple and so accessible, perhaps.

In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the control the AI has over individual men. In the older engine i read that calculations were being done on a per man basis and this does not seem to be the case in the newer one.

The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Ludens
However, personally I think the A.I. has lost they capability of doing so, rather than still being able but chosing not to. However small the height advantage is, it's still an advantage so why does it it given away? It can't be because the A.I. does not want to tire its units, because it shows no consideration for the level of fatigue in combat.

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?

I agree that the AI shows no consideration for fatigue at all almost; in fact this is interesting as for some home modding i did i put the movement modifier much lower (about 45% to 60% - tried values) to slow down the movement speeds. The result was that fatigue was far more pronounced to units in other words it was like they walked more ground for the same distance in that way. I didn't play long enough that way to gauge AI response to that though.

Originally posted by Ludens
In my view, this supports my hypothesis that the A.I. does not calculate the actual combat value, but operates on routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.

Originally posted by Ludens
The older engine definetly made combat-calculations on a man-to-man basis. Why do you think this has been changed?

I am no expert in these things but it would appear to save some calculation power (cpu) for other things, that probably have to do with graphical appearances.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the source of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).

Many Thanks

Noir

[caravel]

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Men in the older engine were constantly tracked through out battle and the campaign, I'm not so sure about the new engine. Every many had his own valour stats IIRC. The unit valour is just an average of the valour of every man in the unit. I believe that this is no longer the case in the newer engine.

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

True, I have noticed this also.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

I find them unwieldy and they never seem to target a particular man in a unit but more so attack the mass of the unit, I've observed cavalry riding past jabbing at thin air, and a man on the ground suddenly fall down dead when he was clearly not close enough. This is more obvious when you're trying to clean up routers. Also you can end up having to pull units out and send them in again just to kill off a lone enemy in a "glob" this is more of a problem in city plazas. The contact is simply unconvincing. If they were individuals then one of those individuals would be able to kill that lone enemy inside the mass of your men, this leads me to believe that somehow they're not. STW/MTW had poor sprite based unit graphics but if you look you can see exactly which man is attacking which.

This last bit, together with the larger amount of battles on avergare per campaign due to the introduction of the new campaign map system, may be the sourse of the very fast kill rates that were also responsible for a loss in tactical depth in RTW. In other words the game would look bad and boring and take ages to complete with more "reasonable" kill rates, and this can be seen in certain mods that the units duke it out with their repetitive hits or in RTR that there is an endless array of relatively long battles that render it too long to be trully fun for a new player non-TW hardcore.

True, the battle engine has been designed around a different principle. Trying to apply the STW/MTW principles of slower speeds, lower kill rates etc doesn't work for RTW IMHO.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

And this is, for me, the interesting part. 3D men with no substance. They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell. The weapons and attack swings are only cosmetic and very often out of sync with the opponents death. This is no more advanced than STW/MTW in terms of combat, and not truer combat physics such as that seen in some hack and slash games where the actual weapon is picked up, and used to attack the enemy causing damage on intersection with the mesh/bounding box. It doesn't work like this in TW games because a true physics engine for combat, for thousands of men, and not just a few, would eat the CPU. In short their 3D nature is only cosmetic, it adds nothing to the physics and dynamics.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Cambyses II
The problem with the battle engine is that CA's entire focus was on 3D unit models, and nothing else. In a strategy game where if you're actually zoomed in close enough to appreciate it all, then you cannot really oversee the battle effectively. The physics of this are quite simply appalling. Men shooting through the air in all directions, flying horses, slow and unrealistic lunges and swipes. The physics seemed to have taken second place to the appearance.

Now connect this with the fact that the long distance sprites were, and are to this day simply awful. This one was very important to whoever was playing the game for tactics and not zoomed in half of the time; even if you look at battles from miles away with IAN mode at the older engine the sprites and their actions, and even the arrows mid air, are reckognisable. In RTW everything turns blurred, past step 3 or 4 in the camera that allows for effective battlfield surveyllance.

Originally posted by Cambyses II
They are 3D visually only. They still work on the principles and same attack round system of SWT/MTW, as far as I can tell.

This might or might not be the case for M2. The combat results and apparently cycles are strongly connected to the animations and thus the 3-D
men may have substance there. I haven't played the game long enough (for 2weeks upon release) to really observe this; my comment is based in reading the forums and intuition. In RTW i agree that the system seems to be fairly similar to that of the old engine - if not identical.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Ludens]

Sorry, but i lost the flow of thought there - if it gives away (the position advantage) then how can he be showingconsideration for not tiring his units, since he does so (tiring hi units) in the process?

The point is that the A.I. lets you take the height advantage without responding (other than changing it's facing). If, like you suggest, the A.I. does this because it believes it gives it the highest combat modifiers, maintaining or regaining height advantage must mean a trade-off with another combat modifier. The only modifier I can think of is fatigue, but the A.I. shows very little concern for fatigue in other conditions. Ergo, I do not think the A.I. calculates optimal combat modifiers, but instead works with routines.

Not necessarily - when i play MTW & mods the AI seems fully conscious of his overall melee power of his and the opponents army, and if he has more melee infantry than the player he rushes, in a full scale attack and i noticed the same behaviour in RTW. If not, he plays more safe, skirmishing, deploying piece meal and trying out flank moves or just stays there until he is attacked.

He also seems to be doing the same at various times during a battle, ie re-assess and act accordingly.

True. However, as you said it still employs it's spear as cavalry-killers even though they are not suited for that after the 1.1 patch. Again, this suggests to me the A.I. works on routines rather than always calculating combat modifiers.

On the other hand, according to Puzz3D the A.I. of M:TW would never attack an enemy unit with a weaker one, so apparently there is some calculation of modifiers going on. This is not the case in R:TW, though.

In all probability the "men" in the older engine were consisting of a single "dot" concept wise. The combat caclulation it-self could have been very straight forward. In the newer engine, the men being 3-D and all, they should be consisting of a "hit-box" for calculation purposes. The calculation now should be way more complicated in that it has to include where the weapons are falling in order to make a "hit" before the actual calculation can take place (at least i would guess so).

Units in the older engine were very obedient in taking orders and also could do quite amazing courses of action that gave tactical options for the skilled player. One example is the way they spreaded in chasing down routers - you can clearly see that they were operating well in an individual basis.

Another example is that i have seen for example cavalry that charges a close opponent split in two, ending up attacking a second opponent too if you give the order to them to do so in the last moment. In a recent battle i was able to hold up two enemy "blobs" this way until help arrived with 1 single heavy cavalry unit. It shows that the AI was "instilled" in each sprite individually probably, as well as in the unit as a whole.

In RTW units move as one whole/blob and such tricks as well as effective router chasing do not happen (at least i didn't notice them). They also seem to be slightly deficient in the way they gang up on enemy soldiers.

Good points. However, I recall one of the developers stating that they did not implement overhand spears because they had trouble with the hit-boxes. Also, animation speeds also have an influence on combat outcome. Thirdly, I've seen the "general killed" animation start, and suddenly stop without the general dying, apparently because an enemy soldier in the general's vincinity was cut down. This does suggests that combat is calculated on an individual basis.

All in all - the extra complexity seems to have taken out forcibly some of the options engine abilities for tactical depth as there has to be a compromise between what can be achieved (system requirements), what looks believable (appearance - feeling of a battle) and tactical depth. That is tactical depth has to share consideration with two other parameters that "do not care" for it, in fact they contradict it in many cases.

In the end, the results look goofy to me even to this day. The animations of 3-D men, however advanced - still defy belief and are ridiculous, and if i may add of hollywood-like aesthetics that are cheap and populistic IMO. They would need uber computers to make them act really proper, and once one starts going down that route there is no end to the amount of detail you can include.

At the same time, the game suffers on the gameplay side because of this, in the battle-map (and in the campaign map IMO, but that's another story).

Very true, sadly.

[guineawolf]

i am thinking that romans aint that powerful if they do not have that 12 armor,armor piercing pila and swordarm......and every romans unit have better morale than other factions.....romans unit can fight without general.

coz i have try to playing Brutii in different way,since the Brutii are so rich,then i decide to using numbers to overwhelm every faction of the campaign.............(just like the zerg overwhelming those terrans with zerglings)(it is fun to see my enemy killing a lot of my troops but still get exterminated=overwhelming!unstoppable!!!i am going to use eastern infantry next time)

i have use town watch as my regular infantry,but seem the town watch are too weak for combat and it's morale are too low to prolonged their combat,then i decide to build temple of Mars=3 exp(1exp give 1 morale bonus) and 1 morale bonus=give 4 morale bonus(since Mars also got increase tradeable goods by 2 compare to Mercury).And i am using generals with morale boost retinue and traits to boost town watch low morale...

my town watch have fight greek armour hoplites,hoplites,militia hoplites and spartans..
Fighting militia hoplite is easy,same armor,easy kill...hoplites?slower a bit than militia since only 6 armor,spartans same with hoplite just take out a lot of my troops...then armoured hoplites,that is pain in the ass,i can't even take down 1 unit of armoured hoplites with 20 units town watch surrounding it WITHIN 30 MINUTES!!!(those hoplites are using phalanxe formation)
I flank them on their side and their back do me no good,those armoured hoplites keep falling and keep stand up and fight!( there is a 10 command star general leading my town watch)time end!always got 10 to 20 leftovers,then i decide to use auxilia,finally it finish the job,just a little bit faster......
then facing Julii's legions,still same,town watch can't kill them in time,auxilia finish the job,of coz with high casualties too!

i do custom battle,1 general,4 militia,against 1 legion.results=1 militia rout with 20men left,another militia rout the legion(legion left 10 men) with only 30-40 men lost,the miliita hoplite can kill legion very fast too without flanking move(face to face) with just swordarm not phalanxe,but town watch just a little bit faster than campaign battle...

my conclusion here is it seem when they reach more than 10 armor,it is impossible to using spears to against them.....
it explain a lot why my parthians hillmen can't hurt those legions while militia hoplites can....and it explain a lot why barbarian light warband(short spear warband)can take many hastati and principles with them but not legion with lorica segmenta armor(12 armor)
Even those phalanxe pikemen that using swordarm in my old Seleucid campaign can beat legion,if they(phalanxe pikemen) can have higher morale then they can fight longer even without general....(legion got 10 morale while phalanxe pikemen have 4 only)

1 of my custom battle,gladiators vs gladiators,free at will,i use Scipii mirmillo(weapon=spear),i wait and let Julii samnite(weapon=sword) fight with Brutii velites(weapon=spear),samnites take out velites easily fight with my mirmillo,my mirmillo wins,but with high casualties

note:all my units oredi have silver equipments(level 2 weapons and level 2 armor)

[guineawolf]

this time i am using light auxilia(romans javelinmen) to against greeks cities,coz it have 6 javelins to against phalanxe formation,and sword that can effectively against infantry and fast moving that can do fast flanking move..and it just 290 denarii to train compare to auxilia 430 denarii,same upkeep 170 denarii....
i got 7 unit from city own temple city of Horus and city own large temple of Mars,it's attributes:
-unit from Horus- ***-unit from Mars-
melee attack -7 9
missile attack-9 11
charge bonus-2 2

armor *****-5 4
defence skill -3 5
shield *****-2 2

total defence-10 11

my army face 3 unit of armoured hoplites=484 soldiers,i take out all of them with 7 unit light auxilia=1127 soldiers,just 450 to 470 casualties......

it seems swordarms works...sweet!!!..


a movie=Battle for rome, Romans vs the Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xum38KinXQ4&NR=1



after a few battle,it prove that light auxilia are very useful with it's fast moving and swordsarm after shower of javelins to it's enemy....just make sure always get a general to take care of them......(even enemy archers can't resist them.....)

[guineawolf]

after watching first EPISODE of Ancient Rome from youtube,those infantry uniform look like principles,it seems that they are still using principles after Marius Reforms,it just better trained.
And i read from history that classic legion(legion with lorica segmenta armor) is introduced by Augustus,i think i will put principles into militia barrack,1 level lower than original principles producing barracks(city barracks) for early swordmen for romans.(since the principles having the same armor with auxilia)


link to that movies,it got 6 part:
Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4g5DnhjBjo

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufv75Wn9ZHk

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIb1G12AItQ

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXwEqqdhbM

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKlU8cmBy0

Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire part 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfyFnSv-GM

after reconsidering for the game balance here,i think i will use light auxilia to replace the principles........